When will JB be appreciated?

[keevsnick]

That extra 2.5 million has no real utility on a title contender, so why risk the hurt feelings?

You start getting into real problem if you pay players more than they are worth.

These are the two sides to roster management.

So long as Wyc and Pags are happy keeping the team together, I don't care if the team is overpaying or not.  Do whatever it takes to keep this team together as a contender.  I'm an advocate for the team spending money even when it's not necessarily fiscally prudent, so there's no argument from me if we offer JB more than a traditional max.

Yep. Draymond Green, Klay Thompson, probably Andrew Wiggins, all overpaid. Yet the Warriors won the title last year. Poole will be overpaid once his new extension starts. None of that matters because the ownership keeps paying their gigantic luxury tax.

[Big333223]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

I brought up this same question in the off-season.  Is it an "insult" to offer him above the normal max, but below the supermax?

The consensus seemed to be that you offer him the supermax and don't think twice about it, particularly with the cap scheduled to rise financially. 

I think I agree with that thinking.  I think that we need JB, and if the supermax is what it takes to get him to stick around, then we pay him.  I wish NBA teams had more freedom in writing contracts, though.  If there are any Kyrie-like behaviors going forward, I'd love for the Celtics to have an avenue to void the contract.

I don’t think it’s insulting either way. If you don’t want a player, you can lowball him to try to save face. The Red Sox did this unsuccessfully with Jon Lester and took a PR hit.

If you want to keep Jaylen, pay him more than any other can/will. If you want him to walk, offer him less than the maximum allowed.

There's a scenario where we offer JB more than any other team can, but still less than the maximum allowed.  My original question was, is there a middle ground, or does JB absolutely require the full maximum allowed?

Very hypothetical numbers that are not based in reality:  let's say the most another team can offer Brown is $35 million per year, with 5% annual raises.  The max we can offer is $40 million per year, with 7.5% annual raises.  If we offer $37.5 million per year with annual raises, does JB reject that offer, and then have hurt feelings that we offered less than we could?

In most negotiations outside the NBA, that's a very reasonable offer by the Celts.  It might be accepted, it might be countered, but it's not "disrespect".  Within the NBA, though, there have been several players who have not been happy when their teams seemed to try to give them less than they could.

If the Celtics made that offer and then were to lose Jaylen Brown because they offered 5% lower than his max, that would be one of the biggest self owns a franchise has made in recent memory. That extra 2.5 million isn't doing anything accept saving the owners a little bit of luxury tax, that's it. You have no way of replacing his salary slot.

You already got the guy on the cheap rookie contract. Then you got him on a second contract he outperformed. Pay the guy.

So forget about how Jaylen Brown would feel about it, as a fan I would be extremely annoyed.

This sounds right. If JB earned that hypothetical $37.5M, don’t nickel and dime him on the last $2.5M. He’s already performed above his first two deals. Also, if the analysts are right, max players are almost always worth more than the ceiling the CBA allows.

Yes, basically this. If you somehow don't think Jaylen is worth a max contract than fine, but there are very few situations in which Jaylen is going to be a good contract at 37.5 million, but a bad one at 40 million. That extra 2.5 million has no real utility on a title contender, so why risk the hurt feelings?

This is my thinking as well. What would the team hope to accomplish by offering a max that isn't the supermax? Doesn't seem worth the possible downside, even if that downside is remote.

I think the respect level Brown gets has a lot to do with first impressions. He wasn't an all-rookie guy despite being drafted 3rd and I think that lingers with people for longer than they like to admit. He'll get his due if the Celtics win a ring this year.

[Vermont Green]

Unless and until there is a true hard cap, I don't see any reason why the Celtics would pay Brown $35M but not $40M or whatever the numbers end up being.  We project to be a tax payer for several years in any case.

But that said, I don't think it is as simple as saying well the Warriors paid and won a championship, so we should too.  The Warriors are 1 example of that leading to a championship but there are plenty of other examples where overpaying or getting saddled with bad contracts kills a team.  I see Brown as a good investment, a good contract.  But that does not mean that overpaying in general is smart.

For example, Klay Thompson if over $40M for this season and next.  Would it be smart to pay him a max again?  Do they need to do that to win a championship?  To stay competitive?  Is that the best way for them to stay competitive?

[dannyboy35]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

I brought up this same question in the off-season.  Is it an "insult" to offer him above the normal max, but below the supermax?

The consensus seemed to be that you offer him the supermax and don't think twice about it, particularly with the cap scheduled to rise financially. 

I think I agree with that thinking.  I think that we need JB, and if the supermax is what it takes to get him to stick around, then we pay him.  I wish NBA teams had more freedom in writing contracts, though.  If there are any Kyrie-like behaviors going forward, I'd love for the Celtics to have an avenue to void the contract.

I don’t think it’s insulting either way. If you don’t want a player, you can lowball him to try to save face. The Red Sox did this unsuccessfully with Jon Lester and took a PR hit.

If you want to keep Jaylen, pay him more than any other can/will. If you want him to walk, offer him less than the maximum allowed.

There's a scenario where we offer JB more than any other team can, but still less than the maximum allowed.  My original question was, is there a middle ground, or does JB absolutely require the full maximum allowed?

Very hypothetical numbers that are not based in reality:  let's say the most another team can offer Brown is $35 million per year, with 5% annual raises.  The max we can offer is $40 million per year, with 7.5% annual raises.  If we offer $37.5 million per year with annual raises, does JB reject that offer, and then have hurt feelings that we offered less than we could?

In most negotiations outside the NBA, that's a very reasonable offer by the Celts.  It might be accepted, it might be countered, but it's not "disrespect".  Within the NBA, though, there have been several players who have not been happy when their teams seemed to try to give them less than they could.

    It’s absolutely disrespectful. But that’s absolutely just my opinion.  Voiding his contract for more Kyrie like behavior is hilarious though. Thanks for the laugh. Ridiculous take.